Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Killer says he admires “Trevor" (Philips), a murderous character in the Grand Theft Auto V video game

Trevor in Grand Theft Auto V

Spokesman-Review, March 26, 2014, p. 1

Coeur d'Alene, Idaho -- A 14-year-old boy accused of killing his father and younger brother Monday night (March 24) in Coeur d’Alene showed no remorse in an interview with investigators and told them he had contemplated and prepared for the brutal killings for months.

Eldon G. Samuel III is charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his father, Eldon Samuel Jr., 46, and his brother, Jonathan Samuel, 13, inside an emergency housing unit owned by St. Vincent de Paul North Idaho. His bail was set Tuesday at $1 million.

The elder Samuel was shot once in the stomach and three times in the head with a .45-caliber pistol, according to a Coeur d’Alene Police Department report. Jonathan Samuel was shot with a shotgun, stabbed with a knife and hacked with a machete, the report stated.

The 14-year-old Samuel called police to report the shootings, and when officers arrived they found him at the front door, his pants and arms stained with blood.

Samuel told investigators he hated his brother and blamed him for his anger and frustration. He also talked about playing “Grand Theft Auto V,” a popular video game. He told investigators he likes the game character Trevor, saying Trevor has anger issues and likes to shoot people. Samuel said he thinks Trevor is “kinda cool,” investigators said.

For the love of money a degenerate America immerses its youth in sick, violent video games

By Michael Hoffman

www.revisionisthistory.org

“The ‘strings of purse’ are the chief instruments of this curse — a money-madness that has choked Rome ever since she...made herself mistress of all the riches of the Mediterranean. With riches came sloth, greed, cruelty, dishonesty, cowardice, effeminacy...”

—Robert Graves • I, Claudius

Cesspool America presumes to lecture Russia and Iran about morality and values while, for the love of money, the US permits its youth to access degenerate, intensely cruel homicidal video games such as Grand Theft Auto V. The gun-grabbers will use the tragedy in Idaho to call for more infringements on our Second Amendment rights and lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. There will be few if any calls to hold the makers of Grand Theft Auto V liable for the double-homicide which their “game" incited.

We are not dealing with literature here — or even a TV program — rather, a highly realistic, intensely immersive digital phenomenon which young people often engage in for hundreds of hours in the course of their lives. The warping effect on the human mind, especially young and impressionable minds, constitutes a form of behavior modification and brainwashing which is not protected as freedom of expression under the First Amendment. It is not expression. It is incitement to murder.

Teen-aged killer Eldon G. Samuel III confessed his enthusiasm for this game. How many other murderers have been warped by Grand Theft Auto and have not disclosed this fact, or the media have suppressed it? How many people has this sick video game caused to be killed or crippled, and for how much longer will the corporate love of billions of dollars in profits curse our children’s minds and souls with this perversion, while the Federal government scapegoats the manufacturers of firearms and gives the real inciters of cruelty and violence carte blanche?

"Hey, hey cowboy, do you mind that I f**ked your old lady? Sorry? What was that? What? No, no? You don't mind? Oh, because you're a dead man, and the only sentient part of you left is this little bit of brain in the gristle on the end of my boot? Well, thank you very much, cowboy."

Trevor Philips is a character in the Grand Theft Auto series, appearing as one of the three main protagonists along with Michael De Santa and Franklin Clinton in Grand Theft Auto V, and as a main character in Grand Theft Auto Online.

What is known of Trevor's background comes from Trevor's own words. Trevor was born and raised in Canada, near the Canada/United States border. In a conversation with Franklin while hanging out, he claims he "grew up in five states, two countries, fourteen different homes, eight fathers, three care homes, two correctional facilities, one beautiful, damaged flower of a mother" and has "served time, my country, your country and myself". Even as a child, he had a history of rage issues and violent impulses that ruined his attempts to fit into society (notably, it is implied that he, in a fit of rage, sodomized his hockey coach with a hockey stick). His father was abusive towards him, while his mother was overbearing and treated him with condescension. When he was a child, his father abandoned him in a shopping mall. He later burned down the mall in retaliation. Trevor also had a brother named Ryan, who died due to an unknown accident. Trevor reveals, that he dropped out of school. This is the possible reason, why he has a lack of some basic knowledges, such as location of the ancient Rome, which he thought to be a part of America. He also reveals, that he has problems with grammar and "improvising", when it comes to punctuation. It's possible, that he has had some formal education, as he mentions during police chases that he took a night class in criminal law. Later in his life, Trevor discovered that he had a talent for flying jets. He enlisted in the Royal Canadian Air Forces to pilot fighter jets, but several days prior of completing his training, Trevor was evaluated by the woman in charge of psychological evaluations, who deemed Trevor mentally unstable, thus resulting in Trevor's discharge.

After being discharged, Trevor became a drifter and committed petty crimes along the border with no particular goal in mind. He admits to Lamar that he never committed any serious crimes until he met Michael. They first met each other while escorting cargo across the border. Trevor himself claimed that the money he was receiving for the job was good along with the fact that at the time he did not "know enough to check references". While waiting on the runway to meet their employers, Trevor sees not one, but two dust trails coming up the road, despite the fact that he was told there would be one person meeting them. As the second guy drives through the gate, the second driver begins yelling at Michael. Trevor gets close to him, shoots off a flare gun he was carrying at the moment into the second mans eye, killing him. He and Michael both dump the body into a lake after landing the plane. Trevor stated that going through the turn of events was horrible, as the flare was still burning from the inside of his head as they dropped him off, disgusting to the point that Trevor and Michael threw up after landing the plane since the dead man's stench was still inside the cockpit. After the incident, Trevor and Michael created a chagrined relationship and partnership.

His first job involved robbing a place that cashed checks, however the clerk turned out to be someone who knew Trevor, resulting in a positive ID, which landed him a sentence of six months in prison, of which he served four. Over time, Michael developed a relationship with a stripper, Amanda, which created some friction between them, due to Amanda's outspoken dislike of Trevor. In spite of this, Trevor developed surprisingly friendly relationships with the couple's children, who consider him their uncle, although Jimmy is understandably nervous around Trevor.

Trevor and Michael's partnership remained fruitful, until they undertook an ill-fated heist in 2004, alongside an accomplice of theirs, Brad Snider, in North Yankton. The heist initially ran relatively smoothly until Trevor killed a security guard and the trio had to fight their way through the police and barely managed to enter the rural town of Ludendorff where a helicopter was due to wait for them. Unfortunately, Michael did not manage to cross some train tracks in time, and their escape car was hit by a train and was wrecked. Despite being too far from the helicopter, Michael insisted they stick to the plan, and they continued walking towards their helicopter. They were then ambushed by FIB agent Dave Norton, who fired at the trio, killing Brad and injuring Michael. Trevor refused to leave his friends behind and attempted to fight off the police until a wounded Michael told him to save himself, and Trevor reluctantly made his escape.

As a result of the failed heist, both Trevor and Michael mistakenly believed the other one to be dead. Trevor managed to evade the police for several years and make a new life for himself in the rural town of Sandy Shores, San Andreas. There, he founded a small criminal business with his new-found partners Ron Jakowski - a paranoid conspiracy theorist, Wade Hebert - a juggalo, and Chef - a meth cook. The business was named Trevor Philips Enterprises, which specializes in gun smuggling and the manufacturing and selling of crystal meth. During Trevor's time in Sandy Shores, he affiliated himself with high-ranking members of The Lost MC, including the club's leader, Johnny Klebitz. However, their relationship was strained, as Trevor would occasionally have sex with Johnny's girlfriend, Ashley Butler, much to Johnny's understandable vexation.

A few months prior to the events of Grand Theft Auto V, Ron contacts the player character who has been ruining Trevor's businesses and other drug dealers, specifically after stealing an RV full of meth belonging to Trevor for Gerald. The player must meet Trevor at his trailer in Sandy Shores to settle the issue by having the player do jobs for Trevor Philips Industries. Trevor's jobs mainly consist of stealing drugs from rival groups, mainly the Lost MC, while killing the dealers. Jobs details will be sent either from Ron or through Trevor himself.

While once again having sex with Ashley, Trevor learns about the robbery of a jewelry store in Los Santos after a witness quotes a movie line that was a favourite of Michael's during their time as partners. While Trevor is shocked after hearing about Michael's sudden re-appearance, he leaves his trailer where he's shouted at by Johnny for having sex with Ashley. While trying to avoid a confrontation between himself and Johnny by simply walking away, Trevor is pushed to a breaking point as Johnny continues to express his rage. Finally, Wade, Ron, and Ashley watch in horror as Trevor grabs Johnny by the neck and throws him onto the ground, then smashes a beer bottle against Johnny's face and begins stomping on his head, instantly rendering him lifeless. Immediately after, Trevor, alongside Ron and Wade, attack a Lost MC Camp just outside Sandy Shores. Trevor puts them out of commission, wiping out most of the crew there (between them, even veterans like Terry Thorpe and Clay Simons), and orders Wade to figure out where Michael lives. He and Ron do more work, attacking the trailer of Los Aztecas member Ortega (he has the option of killing Ortega) and taking over The Lost MC's airbase and its cargo. He would later return after a new chapter of The Lost recommissioned there to continue business, blowing up the camp entirely and removing The Lost's presence once and for all.

Trevor continues to attempt to do business with other organizations including a wealthy Chinese dealer known as Wei Cheng, who sends his son to Blaine County along with a translator. Trevor attempts to show them his meth lab, but is forced to hide the translator and Tao in freezer and face gang members, who want to kill Trevor for attacking Ortega (or killing him). Trevor manages to kill all of the attackers, however this results in the Chinese backing off from Trevor and doing business with the O'Neil brothers instead. Enraged after learning the Chinese decided to work with the O'Neils whom Trevor dislikes, Trevor attacks the O'Neil's household, kills many of their relatives singlehandedly and ends up blowing their farm.

Soon, Trevor receives news from Wade that while there are two Michael Townleys in Los Santos of different ages, there is a "Michael De Santa" of the same age as Michael would've been who is married with a woman named Amanda and has two children. Trevor recognizes his old partner's alias, and (after stopping briefly to wipe out a recently-established Lost camp on the outskirts of town) he and Wade make the trip to Los Santos, where they take refuge in Wade's cousin Floyd's girlfriend's apartment.

Trevor then tracks down Michael at his home, surprising and shocking everyone in the house. Jimmy then reveals Tracey is auditioning for Fame or Shame. Trevor and Michael then rush to the Maze Bank Arena, knowing full well that Tracey will humiliate herself with her terrible dancing in front of the country. The two break into the audition, where Tracey happily greets Trevor. When the host of the show, Lazlow Jones, began to act sexually towards Tracey during her dance, Trevor and Michael become angry and give chase to Lazlow.

Trevor and Michael chase Jones to the Los Santos River, where Trevor humiliates the celebrity by making him take off his pants and dance while Trevor records it on his phone. As Trevor leaves, he declares that he is back in Los Santos.

After learning that Floyd works at the city's docks, Trevor forces Floyd to take him and Wade to the docks dressed as workers to see if anything worth stealing is present. While there, Trevor learns that a private security force named Merryweather has a freighter ship containing a secret cargo. Assuming the object is valuable, Trevor plans a heist to steal Merryweather's cargo for himself with Michael's help.

Before it could go underway however, Trevor is contacted by the FIB for assistance in extracting a prisoner held by the IAA. Trevor assists by flying the extraction chopper, which he promptly keeps for himself afterward in lieu of payment. Trevor also visits Franklin's hood, where he helps the young gangster discover an ambush by a rival gang and assists in driving them off.

Trevor is brought back to work for the FIB once more, this time to interrogate the person he helped rescue from earlier, Mr. K. Trevor tortures information out of Mr. K, while Steve Haines watches and asks the questions and relays the answers to Michael and Dave Norton. After the job is done, Trevor helps Mr. K escape by driving him to the Los Santos airport and telling him to run away, despite the fact Mr. K lives in Los Santos and has family living there as well.

Eventually, Trevor gets to put his heist into motion and manages to steal the target cargo with the combined effort of Michael and Franklin. However, Lester Crest arrives to discourage Trevor from taking the cargo, as it is in fact a super-weapon that could destroy the entire city and the military will stop at nothing to recover it. Trevor refuses to give it up, but is forced to when Michael and Franklin agree it is not worth keeping it due to its danger. Trevor is outraged at getting nothing out of the heist.

Trevor continues to do jobs with Michael, including assassinating the cousin of Mexican mob boss, Martin Madrazo. However, Trevor has an infatuation with Madrazo's wife, Patricia, and after payment negotiations fall through with Madrazo, Trevor kidnaps her, forcing Michael and himself to go into hiding. Whilst in hiding, he assists Michael and Franklin in robbing a bank, which contains money, extorted by the corrupt Paleto police deparment from meth labs and weed farms in order to secure finds for another job and continues running his business. Eventually, Michael repays Madrazo with an artifact he stole, while a reluctant Trevor returns Patricia to her husband.

Upon Trevor's return to Los Santos, he encounters Floyd's girlfriend Debra who has returned from a business trip. When they object to his return quite violently, Trevor ends up murdering the couple and moves into the Vanilla Unicorn strip club after "taking it over". At this point, he realises what really happened in North Yankton nine years prior and travels back to North Yankton to confirm his suspicion that Brad had been buried in place of Michael, with Michael in pursuit. After a stand off at Michael's (Brad's) grave, Trevor scarpers away as they are attacked by Cheng's henchmen. Although he now considers Michael to be his enemy, he aids him nonetheless after Michael is ambushed by the FIB, IAA, and Merryweather at the Kortz Center. His reasoning for his actions was to pull off the Union Depository heist that Michael had been planning. After the heist, Trevor's fate depends on Franklin's choice to kill him, Michael or everyone that had double-crossed them.

Franklin and Trevor meet at the Paleto Oilfields before escalating into a full-speed chase around the fields. Eventually, Michael crashes into Trevor causing him to crash into a gas tanker, covering him in gasoline. Either Franklin or Michael shoots the gas which incinerates Trevor before the tanker explodes.

"I can be myself out here. Bullying, reckless, totally selfish. Do the things that make me, me."

--Trevor during Minor Turbulence.

Trevor has been described as a difficult person to deal with, extreme, impetuous, vengeful, psychopathic, sociopathic, unhinged, unpredictable, untamed, infamous, homicidal, and prone to violent outbursts and destructive rampages. He does everything in a psychopathic and relentless manner, (much different from Michael). Although Trevor is like this, he is honest about it and will never show hypocrisy. He has his own charm along with his own principles. However, Dan Houser has confirmed that Trevor may not be all he seems and is still too horrible to be a hero of any kind. He is also quite insecure about being born in Canada, and takes offense to people mocking his accent. Almost all of the Rampages are caused by Trevor flying into rage over being mocked over his Canadian accent. During a mission, Ron asks Trevor about his business dealings in Canada, resulting in Trevor getting defensive and demands for Ron to clarify. Ron hastily corrects himself by asking about Trevor's business dealings in North Yankton "along the Canadian border,” defusing a possible violent outburst from Trevor, thus showing his insecurity for being Canadian.

Trevor's mere presence always puts others on edge due to his extremely short temper and unpredictable, impulsive behaviour. Ron, who is one of Trevor's friends and an unlikely one at that, is constantly terrified of him and frequently tries to appease Trevor whenever he can, especially if he is close to getting angry. Michael is also wary of him when they reunite, stepping in front of his son to protect him. Despite Ron's fear and Trevor's psychopathic behaviour, they do seem to show a level of trust to each other as Trevor usually tasks Ron to do a few missions for him such as blowing up the Lost MC fuel tank and helping him drop off cargo via a plane, as well as running Trevor Philips Enterprises in his absence. Wade, another friend, is equally scared of Trevor. Though Trevor torments and punches Wade often, this bullying extends to Wade's cousin, Floyd, as well. In the Merryweather Heist, he gets angry quickly when his score is compromised. In the offshore ending, he gets so angry that he rams his face onto a wooden board and repeatedly smashes his face on it.

Out the three protagonists, Trevor can be said to be a true sociopath if not a borderline psychopath, as he easily kills with no remorse, has the typical parental issues (abandoned by his father and sensitive about his mother), is a pyromaniac and frequently abducts people and takes them to the Altruist Cult which he calls his "friends in the mountains". The cult in question is implied to be made up of cannibalistic killers which Trevor is aware of. When Trevor kills Johnny, he demands that Johnny get up to face him, apparently unaware that he killed him. It is extremely unlikely that he cared though due to his plans to get rid of The Lost and how enraged he was with Johnny. Nevertheless Trevor quickly moves on and makes a joke out of the blood and brain tissue on his shoe. In conflict with this behaviour however, is his protectiveness of Michael's family and his apparent grief when he thought Michael was dead, which shows a level of emotion not common in most sociopaths as they usually have little to no positive emotions for other people. In addition to this he refused to leave Michael in the prologue, while he was on the ground after being shot. Trevor seems to only care about the people very close to him and he can be truly loyal to them, which specifically includes his mother, Patricia Madrazo, Maude, Michael, and later on even Franklin. Brad's death affected him harshly, leaving him to blame Michael for what happened nine years ago back in North Yankton.

In contrast with his heavily sociopathic behaviour, he has shown many times how needy he is for love and care. He tells Michael repeatedly how much he mourned him, to the point that he got a tattoo with his name on it. As he was being confronted by Floyd and Debra, he told them how much he wanted to be with them. His relationship with Patricia was also a display of true love and, in his words, he enjoyed a lot the time spent with her.

Despite his weak relationship with Amanda and having a strained friendship with Michael, Trevor surprisingly cares for Jimmy and Tracey, viewing them as surrogate niece and nephew. Evidence of his caring is chasing Lazlow Jones when he does a sexual pose against Tracey as she performs a stripper-like dance and forcing him to take off his pants and dance in his underwear. Also, he will not allow Jimmy to drink alcohol when hanging out with him.

Trevor also seems to sometimes dwell on respect. When Wade calls Ashley a bitch, Trevor tells him it's not funny and asks him if he has a mother (probably due to his sensitivity about his own mother). He also often tells some of his friends to show some respect to himself, and also sometimes even others. When Wade is covered in what seems like waste, Wade's cousin suggests to call the heist off, but Trevor responds by telling him to respect Wade for what he went through and so he should carry on with the heist.

Trevor, despite his heartless behaviour - possesses an awareness for guilt. This is seen in the Strangers and Freaks mission Minute Man Blues in which Manuel; one of the innocent men captured by Trevor and the Civil Border Patrol members Joe and Josef in suspicion of being an illegal immigrant in the previous mission An American Welcome, stands up to Trevor fearlessly despite the latter pointing a gun at him, and claims he and his family have migrated to America since more than 200 years ago, saying that he is more American than Trevor is. He criticizes Trevor for disregarding civil rights with "Trevor's friends", who are harassing innocent legal immigrants and, in Trevor's case, in return for money. He adds that, unlike the Civil Border Patrol; he will not give Trevor a single cent for helping him to stop the Civil Border Patrol. Fuelled by this and Trevor having already felt the Civil Border Patrol's actions were indeed illegal, he storms into a rage and hunts down and puts and end to the Civil Border Patrol once and for all.

Trevor uses threats of sexual violence in order to show his dominance over other men, as well as enjoying making them uncomfortable. Many of his sarcastic remarks have been misinterpreted as sincere statements by players. He seems to take it a step further with Floyd, as there are many things that suggest a sexual relationship. Notably, if the player switches to Trevor during his stay at Floyd’s condo, sometimes Trevor can be seen looking over Floyd as he lays in the fetal position wearing women's clothing, uttering an apology to Debra while sobbing. However this could just be Trevor showing his dominance by humiliating Floyd. Also, if the player chooses to catch Ralph Ostrowski, Trevor implies that he sexually abused men while in prison. It should be noted that this behaviour is only present when in the presence of weak people such as Ron, Wade, Floyd, and a meth addicted Johnny Klebtiz.

Trevor has showed a lot of hints that he feels sexual attraction towards men too, besides his normal sexual dominant behaviour towards weaker men. He showed certain interests in the stag do running man random encounter. In the mission "I Fought The Law," Trevor touches the private parts of one of the guys as he's dressed as a police man. During a drink outing with Franklin, he admits he already have done fellatio on men (I'd rather suck a dick than smoke weed... and trust me, I've done both!). In another conversation during an outing with Michael and Franklin at the same, time, he admits he's bisexual after Clinton asked him whether he's gay or not.

Trevor is shown to be disgusted by racism, misogyny, as well as self-righteous and hypocritical attitudes which he considers "fake." He criticizes the Minute Men and the LSPD for their racist behavior, reprimands Wade for his remarks toward Ashley, and threatens Martin for mistreating Patricia. After torturing Mr. K, he mocks FIB's usage of torture as a means of interrogation, claiming it is only a method of showing dominance and that the government fails to admit this.

While it is never stated in-game, Trevor shows textbook signs of Intermittent Explosive Disorder; a mental condition which includes episodes of impulsive behaviour that could result in serious damage to anyone and anything around them, aggression grossly disproportionate to what provoked it, and episodic violence that cannot be categorized with any other existing mental and physical medical condition...

While Trevor is often controlling, loud, and willing to hurt anyone who he perceives as a threat in some way, whether physically or mentally, he is terrified by his mother. Upon meeting her in his trailer in the mission Mrs. Philips, he speaks incoherent sentences, is unable to answer questions and runs off to do the job she assigns to him without questioning it....

Friday, March 21, 2014

F.B.I. agents fatally shot about 70 "subjects" and wounded about 80 others from 1993 to early 2011 — and in every case, the agents' use of force was determined by the government to have been justified.

The case of Ibragim Todashev stinks to high heaven: the authorities have repeatedly changed their story of how Mr. Todashev died.

His interrogation was allegedly not recorded on video or audio (corporate media seldom report this fact).

The unarmed Todashev supposedly posed an imminent lethal threat to at least three policemen in the room.

Not one major media outlet in the United States has assigned investigative reporters to dig for the truth behind the coverup.

We are supposed to believe the account of the killers, with no independent corroboration of their ever-mutating tale.

Todashev was most likely killed because he courageously insisted that the Boston marathon bombing suspects were the victims of a set-up (corporate media seldom report this fact about Todashev).

Notice that people close to him, including his girlfriend, have been deported by the U.S. government.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

The latest issue of Revisionist History Newsletter is now shipping to subscribers:

When God Spoke Greek

An Account of the Suppression of the Original Biblical Text of the Church

IS YOUR OLD TESTAMENT FAITHFUL TO THE ONE JESUS USED?

In the Greek Septuagint Scriptures the early Christians saw a divinely established redoubt whose providential manifestation among Jesus and His apostles forever marked it with Yahweh's imprimatur. Hoffman contrasts the Septuagint with the Hebrew Masorete and Latin Vulgate versions. Special section on Michelangelo's derogation of Moses based on the Vulgate; the ban on God's personal name. Why does the Septuagint have almost no place in the western Church today?

Plus: Freemasonry's corruption of the British Police; 1960s radicals who opposed homosexuality; the despicable pride of the rabbis; Russia, Ukraine and the Money Power; the assassination of Jock Yablonski; Could Hitler have won WWII?, and more.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Here is evidence concerning the mob violence in Ukraine which President Obama and the European Union have legitimated.

Watch and learn of the extent to which we have been deceived by “our” government and media concerning the overthrow of an elected president by a mob of brutal thugs — footage the “free” American media will not broadcast:

Monday, March 10, 2014

An Italian Catholic journalist challenges the behavior and example of Pope Francis

Editor's Introduction: The following essay is the clearest clarion alarm we have seen in writing regarding the pontificate of Pope Francis. It is a jeremiad, but the Italian author, Mario Palmaro, makes his points with charity. Pope Francis famously telephoned Palmaro after his essay was published, with the sum effect of the phone call being the "I'm Ok/You're Ok" psychology of insipid niceness that passes for manly discussion and meaningful dialogue these days.

The religion of the pope and the Vatican is no longer Christ. Our Savior is merely a prop, a totem presented with fanfare so as to maintain the facade. The religion of the pope and the Vatican is Talmudic Judaism (first) and "Diversity" (a close second).

The "Who am I to judge?” spiel has nothing whatsoever to do with not being judgmental! The pope, his cardinals like Dolan of New York and Schönborn of Austria, and the sodomites both Catholic and non-Catholic, pose as founts of tolerance and compassion, and of course the controlled media play along.

But just observe the reaction of these paragons of equanimity if a Catholic bishop or priest were to declare the truth that Orthodox Judaism is an Antichrist creed which sends the souls of its adherents to perdition. Is anyone so bonkers as to believe that Pope Francis would respond to such a statement with the words, "Who am I to judge?"

A thundering chorus of judgment and denunciation would issue from the pope and his prelates, who would be "aghast" at the "provocation" and the "antisemitism,” and this judgment of theirs would deluge the television screens and newspaper front pages of the media of the West. We know this because we have witnessed it already from the mouths and the pens of the recent popes, most especially Pope “Saint” John Paul II and the quondam pontiff, Benedict XVI.

Why the differing reactions? Why a judgmental condemnation of those who practice truth telling concerning the religion of iniquity which the Pharisees in their Mishnah and Gemara concocted?

The answer is elementary: homosexual sodomy is not regarded by the pope as a scourge, or a horrible evil, or an outrageous offense against God and nature. This is the key to understanding the pontificate of Francis. He is not judging persons who commit sodomy beause he does not class homosexual sodomy as a true evil, on par with “the evil” of educating mankind concerning the religion of the Babylonian Talmud.

Judging people remains in place for the pope of Rome. He is, has been, is, and will be, barring divine intervention, extremely judgmental when responding to prominent critics of the Talmud or skeptics toward the Auschwitz gas chamber tales. His record in Argentina gives ample evidence of this.

Let us keep these facts in mind when we hear from the young and the naive how “cool" it is that "Pope Francis has birthed a new dawn of non-judgmentalism.” They mistake a refusal to teach right and wrong concerning the sins that have always been sins since Sinai (and before), for “tolerance” — not realizing that this pope and his confrères are ready, in the blink of an eye, to damn the new class of "foul sinners" whose “sin” (political incorrectness) didn't even exist 60 years ago.

Hence, the world turned upside down: the sins which the Church has always condemned are now massaged and caressed with "love and tolerance," in all humility, etc. Meanwhile, freethinkers in the tradition of the Bereans (Acts 17:11), who use their God-given reason to question maniacal modernism, media pieties and Zionist impostures, who teach as Christ and the Apostles and saints throughout history have taught concerning the religion of Pharisaic Judaism — it is these contemporary Bereans who will be judged, since the media and the Sanhedrin will demand it, warning that the failure of the pope to condemn these independent-minded questioners and critics would constitute a "failure to bear witness."

In the following essay, Mario Palmaro bears true witness by addressing the failure to judge offenses against God which have been offenses for 6,000 years, not 60.

A note from Riccardo Cascioli: What follows is a little unusual, but as it is a central topic in the life of the Church and of our work, we offer it to you knowing well that it requires a considerable effort by those who want understand things thoroughly. Mario Palmaro, a well-known writer to the readers of La Nuova Bussola Quotidiano, wrote me a very long letter to express publically his indignation about the direction the Church is taking, above all regarding the homosexual aggression which is of interest to the whole world...Palmaro with his friend and colleague, Alessandro Gnocchi, were at the center of polemics in the past months because of a series of articles in Il Foglio, when they harshly criticized Pope Francis. The Pope himself, then telephoned Palmaro, after discovering that he had a grave illness.* Hence, I would like to take the opportunity to ask all our readers to pray for him.

--Riccardo Cascioli,

Director of La Nuova Bussola Quotidana

(Catholic daily online publication)

*Mr. Palarmo died yesterday in Italy at age 45, after a long illness. He is survived by his wife and four children. - M. Hoffman

___________

January 8, 2014

Dear Director

I read your editorial of January 3 [2014] – “Renzi - if this is progress!” , and I can only agree with your analysis on the new Secretary of the [Socialist] Democratic Party - his cunning self-confidence, his transformism, the inevitable contradiction between saying he is Catholic and his promotion of things that conflict not only with the Catechism, but with the natural law. I would like to add my appreciation for all that you have been doing for some time now with the Bussola in the face of the homosexual assault, and don’t want to reproach you in any way.

However, I feel the need to write to you and your readers. In all honesty: is our problem really Matteo Renzi? Did we really expect that one who becomes Secretary of the Democratic Party, would then set about defending the natural family, the unborn, combating artificial insemination, abortion, and opposing euthanasia? Forgive me, are you actually familiar with the PD electorate which include Catholics on pastoral committees, nuns and parish priests? In your opinion, what does that electorate want from Renzi?

It is obvious: “homosexual marriage” and “lesbian-democratic” adoptions. Have you ever listened to the average worker who votes for the left? In your opinion, do they want the defense of natural marriage or do they want council houses for our brother-homosexuals so horribly discriminated against? Let’s stop believing that the problem is Niki Vendola* or the ugly, bad, communist extremists and that it is important to be moderate; the points of reference for the average man are Fabio Fazio* and Luciana Littizzetto*, the Coop, Gino Strada*, Enzo Bianchi* and Eugenio Scalfari*. Renzi puts all these ingredients into his blender, mixes them with doses of homoeopathy from Don Ciotti* and Don Gallo*, and the result is the perfect brew which holds the “little democratic parish” and the Arcigay together. To expect something different from him would be stupid.

The scandal, forgive me, is another. Compared to Renzi - the Secretary of the PD who winks at the homosexuals, the scandal is in listening to the exponents of the New Centre Right who are saying: “Civil unions are not a priority for the government”. Do you get it? It is not that the NCD jumps up like a spring and declares: we shall never vote for these unions – ever! No: he says that they are not a priority. Someone meets Hitler who is talking about wanting to construct gas chambers. Does he reply like this: “Look, Adolf, this is not a priority.” We will do that, we will do that too, all in good time”?

I watched government minister, Hon. Lupi – a Catholic, who explained the situation on a Rai News program. With a very embarrassed face and the terrified eyes of one who is thinking (but I could be mistaken) : “Damn it! Now I have to talk about the non-negotiable principles and homosexuals, and I’ll end up like Pietro Barilla. I’ll have to leave my strategic and important ministry, where I can do so much good for my country and my movement. And then Lupi takes refuge in that well-known theme called ”priorities,” like all of the other lion-hearts in Angiolino and Roccella’s party, he says no, civil unions are not a priority.

Obviously there’s worse: on the same News program, there was Scelta Civica (Civic Choice) saying: we have to defend the rights of homosexual people. Scelta Civica, I believe, is that same party created in a rage by Todi 1* and Todi 2*, which the Italian bishops had erected as a new bulwark for the non-negotiable values under the ‘very Catholic’ leadership of Mario Monti. Then we have the worst of the worst. In the same News, there was a ‘lady’ belonging to Forza Italia who triumphantly announced that they would have put their proposals for homosexual rights together with those of Renzi. I heard a distant roll of drums against civil unions from Salvini’s Lega and even more feebly from the Fratelli d’ Italia. The end.

No, dear Director, my problem is not Matteo Renzi.

My problem is the Catholic Church. The problem is that on the subject of the worldwide outbreak of the homosexual lobby, the Church has fallen silent. We have silence from the Pope to the humblest priest in the peripheries. And if the Pope speaks, the day after Padre Lombardi has to rectify, specify, clarify and differentiate. Please abstain from dusting off letters and declarations made by Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio ten years ago. If I find out today that my son takes drugs, what should I say to him: “go and re-read the joint declaration made by me and your mother six years ago when we told you not to take drugs”? Or would I face him and try to shake him immediately as best I can?

Dear Director, where are the Episcopal Conference and the bishops in this battle? A deafening silence has fallen upon them. Actually, no: Monsignor Domenico Mogavero, Bishop of Mazara del Vallo, ex-under-secretary to the CEI and canonist – no less – spoke – oh, and how he spoke:

“The law cannot ignore hundreds and thousands of people cohabitating. It is right that cohabitating couples be recognized also in Italy without putting them on equal terms with families.” For Mogavero, “The State can and must protect the pact that two cohabitants have made between themselves. In contrast to Christian mercy and universal rights – note well - two cohabitants don’t exist for the law. Today, if one of the two is taken to hospital, the other is even denied in the lending care or receiving medical information, as if they were an outsider.”

The Bishop concludes: “I think it is legitimate to recognize rights such as the reversibility of pensions or the transfer of rent in virtue of the person’s importance. It is unsustainable – Mogavero underlines – that the cohabiter is a Mr. Nobody for the law.” And as regards the Church, for which Pope Francis has invited reflection on this theme, in view of the extraordinary Synod on the Family, “without equating them to married couples, there are no obstacles to common-law unions.” Amen.

Do you get it, dear Director? Shortly they’ll take my son of seven and at school they’ll make him play with condoms and his genitals, and what does the Church talks about with me? About boatloads which sink near Lampedusa, about Jesus who was a refugee, about an obscure Jesuit of the 17th century just beatified! No, my problem is not Matteo Renzi.

Dear Director, where is the Archbishop of Milan, Angelo Scola in this battle?

Shortly they will stop us from saying and writing that homosexuality is against nature, and Scola talks to me about half-castes and of the need to understand and value the Roma (gypsy) culture. And again, it was the Archbishop of Milan some weeks ago who invited the Archbishop of Vienna, Schönborn, to our Cathedral: as the Church is disappearing in Austria, they asked him to come and explain to the priests of our diocese how to obtain such results - what their secret was. Just like this: a coach has brought his team to fall down on the league, and so we’ll give him the teaching post at Coverciano! [The central training ground and technical headquarters of the Italian National Football Team.]

And would you look at the coincidence, among other things: Schönborn – who wears the habit of St. Dominic and Thomas Aquinas – came to explain to the Ambrosian priests that he had personally intervened in protecting the nomination of two homosexuals for a parish council. Schönborn says he met them and: “I saw two pure young men, even if their cohabitation is not what the order of creation has foreseen.” There you have it, dear Director, this is purity according to a prince of the Church at the dawn of the year 2014.

And my problem should be Matteo Renzi and the PD?

They are going to take my seven-year-old son and brainwash him into thinking that homosexuality is normal and in the meantime, my Archbishop invites a bishop to the Cathedral to teach me that two homosexuals living together are examples of purity?

And so to finish. The Matteo Renzi who promotes civil unions is a physiological byproduct of a Pope who, in his travels is interviewed by journalists on the plane and declares: “Who am I to judge” etc, etc. Obviously, I know too that these two are not of the same nature, that the Pope is against these things and certainly suffers regarding them, and that he is motivated by good intentions. However, facts are facts. Confronted with that little sentence – epochal from the mouth of a Pope “Who am I to judge”–, loads of corrective and reparatory articles can be written, which tireless troops of “normalists” have been doing now for months, in order to say, don’t worry all is well – everything is just fine.

But we both know well, and anyone else who knows the mechanisms of communications does as well, that, that “Who am I to judge” is a tombstone on any political and legal battle regarding the recognition of homosexual rights. If we were in rugby, I would tell you that that little sentence gained in a few seconds more meters in favour of the homosexual lobby, than decades of work by the world’s homosexual movement. I’ll tell you too, that bishops like Mogavero, in the shade of that little sentence “who am I to judge” can build castles of dissolution without impunity, and the only thing left for us to do is to keep our mouths shut.

Let’s be clear: to impute that the Pope or the Church are to blame because all the countries in the world are normalizing homosexuality would be foolish: this rising tide is unrestrainable, it cannot be stopped. The reason is simple: London, and Paris, New York and Rome, Brussels and Berlin have become a gigantic Sodom and Gomorrah. The point is however, whether we want to admit this, dispute and denounce it, or whether we want to play smart and hide behind the “Who am I to judge”. The point is also, whether this worldwide Sodom and Gomorrah, merit the language of mercy and comprehension.

Well, then, I wonder, why don’t we also reserve the same mercy for the traffickers of chemical weapons, the slave-traders and financial embezzlers? Aren’t they also poor sinners? Right? Or do I have to ask Schönborn to meet them for lunch and evaluate their purity?

Dear Director, the situation by now is very clear: any Catholic politician, intellectual or journalist even if he wants to fight on the homosexualist front, will find himself spiked in the back by the mysticism of mercy and forgiveness. We are all completely de-legitimized, and any bishop, priest, theologian, director of a diocesan weekly or politician of the Catholic-democratic-type can shut us up with that “Who am I to judge”. We would be riddled with shots like a farm pheasant in a hunting chase by types like Mogavero.

Dear Director, our problem is not Matteo Renzi.

Our problem, my problem, is that the other day the Holy Father said the Gospel “is not proclaimed with doctrinal beatings, but with sweetness.” Also here, I would please ask “normalists” and timewasters to abstain. Even I know that effectively the Gospel is announced like that – apart from the fact that John the Baptist had rather brusque methods himself, and the Lord defines him “as the greatest among those born of woman”.

But you know very well that with that little sentence, we have both been spiked like codfish.

We have both been fighting against legalized abortion, divorce, in vitro fertilization, euthanasia, homosexual unions and cunning politicians like Matteo Renzi, who are promoting and spreading all that stuff. But there you have it, we are both irremediable doctrinal bashers, people without charity, ethicists, “theologians”, as some journalist from Communion and Liberation calls us. Furthermore, phenomenon like La Bussola and Il Timone are anachronistic examples of this lack of charity, of this unpresentable moral rigour. Plus, the daily, titanic efforts of the “normalists” will not be enough to subtract these titles of de-legitimization from official Catholicism, as all the balancing exercises in trying to keep your feet in two different shoes, always end up, sooner or later, with a tragic flight into the void.

I also think that the problem – forgive the personal aspect – is not dirty, ugly and bad Gnocchi and Palmaro, because of what they wrote in Il Foglio.

I would re-write the same thing again, ten, a hundred, thousand times more, since unfortunately, everything is coming to pass in the worst way, much worse than what we could have ever predicted.

This is why, dear Director, our problem and the problem of Catholics and ordinary people is not Matteo Renzi.

The problem is our Mother Church, who has decided to abandon us in the jungle of Vietnam: the helicopters have taken off and we have been left where we’ll let ourselves, one at a time, be spiked by the “Vietcong relativists.” I am not protesting for myself, and you know the reasons why. And besides, I prefer a thousand times, to stay down here waiting for the Vietcong, rather than ever get into one of those helicopters, in which perhaps there is the promise of a little seat in some clerical conference of the type “Scienza e Vita,” under the illusion that one is a part, in some way, of the official power, together with all the other ecclesial movements. Or with the crazy idea - written in black and white - that, Gnocchi and Palmaro were perhaps right, but they shouldn’t have said it, because certain truths should not be uttered, rather they should be somewhat denied publically in order to confound the enemy.

No, I am not protesting for myself.

However, I still have the problem of that seven-year-old son of mine and three older ones too. I don’t want to and can’t give them the response of the boatloads sinking near Lampedusa, the homosexual example of purity from Cardinal Schönborn, the half-castes and the praise of the Roma culture by Cardinal Scola, the disdain for doctrinal thrashings according to Pope Francis and the eulogizing of civil unions by Mogavero. To these children I cannot tell the fairy-tale called “Matteo Renzi.” Anyway, regarding Renzi, ten minutes done well by Crozza* will fix him.

Dear director, dear Riccardo, why would I ever write these things to you? Because last night I couldn't sleep. And because I’d like to understand – and ask the readership of Bussola a question: What more has to happen in the Church for Catholics to stand up, once and for all, and shout their indignation from the rooftops? Attention: I am addressing individual Catholics, not associations, secret meetings, movements, sects which for years have been managing the brains of the faithful for the benefit of third parties, dictating the line the followers have to take. These groups seem to me to be placed under the care of those minus habens [of lesser intelligence] and headed from afar by more or less charismatic individuals, who are more or less trustworthy. No, no: here I am making an appeal to individual consciences, to their hearts, their faith and their virility. Before it is too late.

I owe this to you my dear Riccardo. I owe this to all those who know me and still have esteem for me and for what I represent. Pardon me for having taken advantage of your patience and also that of your readers.

Mario Palmaro

__________________

Translation, slightly adapted to conform to informal style used by Mario Palmaro

– Francesca Romana

Source: Bussola Quotidiana

Translator’s notes:

*Niki Vendola, homosexual ("LGBT") activist, left-wing politician
*Fabio Fazio, TV presenter for left-wing RAI 3
*Luciana Littizzetto, comedian, anti-Catholic, does TV spots for COOP
*Gino Strada, war surgeon, Founder of Italian NGO Emergency
*Enzo Bianchi, Prior of Monastic Community of Bose (Biella), but not a priest, and progressive Catholic writer
*Eugenio Scalfari, editor of left-wing daily – La Repubblica.
*Todi 1 and Todi 2 – two Forums held in the Todi, Umbria for associations and people of Catholic inspiration in the work place in October 2012
*Crozza, comedian of scathing satire
*Don Ciotti, Catholic priest, writer, social activist, particularly against drugs and the Mafia
*Don Gallo, Catholic priest, now deceased, famed for communist ideals and social activism

Lamont's more egregious claims are in boldface, Hoffman's replies are in blue:

Lamont: The reason why Rabbinic Jews are not enemies of the Church can be put briefly. Such Jews do not seek to...prevent non-Jewish Christians from exercising their faith. They only refuse to become Christians themselves, which does not suffice to make them “enemies” of the Church....

______________________________

Hoffman: Notice his qualification: non-Jewish Christians are not prevented. Apparently he doesn't object to interdiction of "Jewish Christians."

Moreover, Christian missionary evangelism to Judaic persons in the Israeli state is banned and the Talmud requires the destruction of the New Testament. Judaic groups across the spectrum from Right to Left oppose the Kingship of Christ in the United States and Europe and are principal forces in the dilution and emasculation of Christianity into a toothless simulacra and an adjunct of Zionism.

In Ashkenazi Judaism Rabbi Moses Maimonides is the chief authority on halacha (law). Maimonides rules that where it is politic to do so and the Jews will not get the blame, then Christians are to be killed whenever possible. Maimonides states that Christianity constitutes idol worship (worship of Jesus of Nazareth as God). According to the Noahide laws of the Talmud, the penalty for idol worship is death.

Orthodox Judaism is implacably opposed to true Christianity. Judaism’s hateful, ritual curse on Christians, which has echoed perpetually down the corridors of time since at least the days of Rabbi Gamaliel, continues in our time. The unrelenting hostility which Orthodox Judaism harbors for western civilization, which it ritually curses as malkhut zadon can be discovered in the Birkat Ha’Minim synagogue invocation as documented in Revisionist History newsletter no. 70, "The Rabbinic Curse on Christians."

____________________________

Lamont: St. Paul’s statement in 1 Thess 2:14-16: “For you, brothers, have become imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you suffer the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and persecuted us; they do not please God, and are opposed to everyone, trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins. But the wrath of God has finally begun to come upon them.” Ennemond argues that since this passage describes the Jews as adversaries of all men, it follows that they are adversaries of the Church.

...These passages cannot, however, be understood as applying to all Jews. The term “adversary,” that is used by St. Paul, is applied to the Jews who sought to prevent the first Christians from preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. It is this attempt to prevent the preaching of the Gospel that constitutes the Jews as “enemies” of all men in St. Paul’s eyes since they are trying to prevent the message of salvation from reaching the rest of the human race. Since Rabbinic Jews make no effort to prevent the preaching of the Gospel to Gentiles, and the founders of Rabbinic Judaism lived some time after the death of Christ, these condemnations cannot be applied to them.

______________

Hoffman: notice that St. Paul does not limit himself solely to the charge of preventing Christians from preaching the Gospel. He also states that the Jews "killed both the Lord Jesus, and the prophets.”

Dr. Lamont repeats his nonsense about rabbinic Jews making no effort to prevent the preaching of the Gospel. I have video footage of Christian missionaries harassed and their headquarters burned in the Israeli state.I suggest that Lamont travel to Tel Aviv, stand on a street corner there with a large crucifix in his hand, preach the true Gospel, declare Jesus the true Messiah of the Jews, and see what happens.

______________

Lamont: This is why there are very few references to Christ and Christianity in the Talmud, and those references that exist are brief and inaccurate. They are scurrilous and abusive, but they make no reference to Christ’s claims to divinity or messianic status

________________

Hoffman: Here the author displays abysmal ignorance. The Talmud says Christ worshipped a brick and led all of Israel astray; does the Messiah do that? It also states that he lusted after a serving girl, that he was conceived when His whorish Mother Mary was menstruating during an adulterous tryst. The Talmud also states that Our Lord is in hell boiling in hot excrement. It states that Jesus got what he deserved when He was killed.

_________________________________

The claim that Rabbinic Jews work to deny the doctrine of the divinity of Christ is, therefore, misleading. They deny it themselves, and seek to prevent Jews from accepting it...

________________________________

Hoffman: Of course on this basis alone this makes them enemies of Christ and His Church. Denying that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God is the New Testament's definition of an Antichrist. Preventing millions of Jewish souls from receiving Christ is Satanic.

_________________________________

Additional falsehoods peddled by John Lamont:

As for the claim that it is a new religion, the first point to be made is that much of theTalmud is not really religious in character at all, but is essentially a code of civil law that covers such things as inheritances, commercial transactions, and criminal law. This code is justified by the claim that it was all received by Moses from God on Mount Sinai. However, it is really a legal code devised by rabbis to provide a basis for the Jewish community after the destruction of the Jewish state. It is a good legal code by the standards of the 2nd to 5th centuries, when it was devised. For example, it differs from the Roman law, which was codified over the same period, in that it allows no role to torture in juridical processes—a form of investigation that Roman law made compulsory. As a legal code, the Talmud is largely a new development; but, it is not an intrinsically religious development. In religious matters, as noted above, the Talmud is an attempt to preserve the beliefs and practices of the scribes and Pharisees (this statement is true and it constitutes an indictment of the Talmud - Hoffman) of the latter part of the Second Temple era (the era from 530 B.C. to 70 A.D., when the second Jewish Temple was in existence). It contains some inaccuracies and expansions of these beliefs and practices, but not enough to constitute Rabbinic Judaism as a new religion

It should be mentioned thatKabbalah is popular among Rabbinic Jews, which is a form of Gnosticism, which is not compatible with monotheism. It can thus rightly be described as a new religion that differs from the belief of Jews prior to the time of Christ. It is, however, a medieval development that is not part of Rabbinic Judaism as such.

Readers may wish to consult Dr. Lamont's article in its entirety rather than Hoffman's excerpts alone:

Furthermore, in Revisionist History Newsletter no. 70 Hoffman offers the latest documentation of the heretofore largely unknown extent of the Judaic-Islamic alliance in the early Middle Ages, and the fact that Orthodox Judaism does not regard Islam as negatively as it does the religion of Jesus Christ.